Nvidia reminds me of what my companies manaagement works like. Your a numbers person or a people person. Whichever was last the next will be the opposite.

Nvidia has saturated the consumer video market, so they see this great new area of cloud gaming. The problem will be if it ever works well enough, that base will actually be much smaller then the consumer one. So sure they get a bump for the short term for an overall long term loss. Their answer to sell more hardware to the consumer has always been to be a game maker themselves and they then could push the envelope to push all gamers and sales forward. I think that singularly has been their biggest mistake. There business is relying on others and others don't want to push HW and shrink possible market size.

Orogogus wrote on May 16, 2012, 12:56:Ya; I said in so many words that the model was untenable. The problem isn't that the commercials aren't good enough. A really clever commercial will just end up on YouTube where people can watch it at leisure and share it. Nothing is going to make people sit through it the way the advertisers intend.

I misunderstood what you meant and that's a good point about Youtube, I hadn't considered it.

Orogogus wrote on May 16, 2012, 12:56:Ya; I said in so many words that the model was untenable. The problem isn't that the commercials aren't good enough. A really clever commercial will just end up on YouTube where people can watch it at leisure and share it. Nothing is going to make people sit through it the way the advertisers intend.

Yeah, and I believe Verno has me blocked so didn't see what I said, but the problem is clearly that we were once a captive audience and no longer are.

But that will bite us as much as help us. Yes, we can use technology to skip what we don't like, but we're hurting what we do like. Until companies figure this out they'll start cutting corners, reducing costs, and vastly reducing risk (well, some will occasionally get insanely risky on something, it won't pay off because it was a stupid idea, then get super conservative for a while.)

I'm not saying this is a bad thing, I'm just saying we'll have a few dark years in which content sucks. And then we'll probably go from betrothed to a few cable companies we hate and a few content companies we're ok with to betrothed to a vendor we will eventually grow to hate (iTunes, Steam, etc.)

Ya; I said in so many words that the model was untenable. The problem isn't that the commercials aren't good enough. A really clever commercial will just end up on YouTube where people can watch it at leisure and share it. Nothing is going to make people sit through it the way the advertisers intend.

Orogogus wrote on May 16, 2012, 12:46:As Beamer said, no commercial remains clever the 40th time. A commercial would have to be pretty damn outstanding to be worth watching a 4th time. The basic model is untenable if people have the option to skip.

That's not really the consumers problem though and I'd contend that the model itself is what is untenable these days. They've been basing the television advertising model on primetime, 18-49 demos for so long that it's in a rut and nothing short of drastic change is going to fix that. There is a reason people have been seeking out their own on-demand solutions that are free of advertisement and the answer isn't more of the same. It's time for them to get creative - with scheduling, with content and trying to innovate again.

Hyatus wrote on May 16, 2012, 12:01:So the answer is to make clever commercials for you to skip over?

Maybe he wouldn't skip them if they were appealing instead of an annoyance, hence make clever commercials instead of Yet Another Tampon Ad.

As Beamer said, no commercial remains clever the 40th time. A commercial would have to be pretty damn outstanding to be worth watching a 4th time. The basic model is untenable if people have the option to skip.

Ratty wrote on May 16, 2012, 10:58:Unskippable commercials even for shows you record as they air. Yeah, I'll be quitting Comcast then.[...]I think the answer is to make clever commercials people will want to watch. Like super bowl halftime ads.

So the answer is to make clever commercials for you to skip over?

I don't know, a Depends commercial could be pretty funny. Also if the actors were nude I'd bet more people would watch (though probably not in a Depends commercial)

Ratty wrote on May 16, 2012, 10:58:Unskippable commercials even for shows you record as they air. Yeah, I'll be quitting Comcast then.[...]I think the answer is to make clever commercials people will want to watch. Like super bowl halftime ads.

Beamer wrote on May 16, 2012, 11:20:Well, the thing about building it into their DVR is who gets paid for it? Comcast puts commercials in their On-Demand because they get some money for it. But regular networks?

Comcast now owns NBC so I see a big incentive there.

But part of it is also that it's Psych, so I'm usually half-watching anyway.

Beamer wrote on May 16, 2012, 10:09:"Fox and NBC: Dish's commercial-skipping DVR 'a strange thing to do' at best, 'an insult' at worst."

In the "be careful what you wish for" department, we're probably less than 3 years away from permanent ad bugs or ad scrolls during shows to compensate for revenues lost via commercial-skipping viewers.

Of course, no one wants to watch crap with that crap, so ad-revenue-driven programming will likely cut back significantly. That's not just networks but basic cable. Which will drop cable subscription rates, meaning HBO will suffer, too.

On the plus side, all of this will force new business models and, probably, new content creativity.On the down side, it will likely lead to a few lame years and some serious viewing habit fragmentation (which we kind of have, anyway.)

Ratty wrote on May 16, 2012, 10:58:I won't be surprised if they build that into their DVRs sometime soon. Unskippable commercials even for shows you record as they air. Yeah, I'll be quitting Comcast then.

As far as new business models go Beamer, I remember they did some very obvious product placements on both Psych and Eureka a couple of seasons back. Psych had constant references to some deodorant throughout the season. It was obvious they were having a little fun with it. I rolled my eyes but I admit it didn't disgust me. For Eureka it was a car, also over several shows. I imagine that would get very very old if we saw that constantly on all of our shows.

I think the answer is to make clever commercials people will want to watch. Like super bowl halftime ads.

Well, the thing about building it into their DVR is who gets paid for it? Comcast puts commercials in their On-Demand because they get some money for it. But regular networks? Comcast isn't getting enough from that advertising to warrant annoying customers. If networks sweeten that pot and give them some cash, maybe, but it's also somewhat of a cat-out-of-the-bag situation.

Product placement can be ok, just like it can be in games. It can be subtle and organic, or it can be obvious and hysterical. Or it can be obvious and annoying. I don't see it really catching on.And screw clever commercials. Doesn't matter how clever it is, I don't want to spend 2 minutes watching a Depends commercial for every 4 minutes of programming. Few commercials are clever (see: this year's Superbowl), and none are clever the 40th time ("Do you guys know how to post videos to Facebook?")

I don't know where we go from here. We're already at a service model, and a la carte isn't overly desirable for content providers as it allows everyone to pirate a little (a true service model gives zero incentive for members to pirate, so people either are or are not pirates) and gives people easy bite-sized tradeable chunks. People already dislike what they pay for the service, so cutting out ads and supplementing it with fees won't go over well. And a true a la carte menu, while forcing networks to only create what people want to buy, will cut back on the amount of offerings and streamline it to be essentially Who Wants to Dance instead of the riskier shows reality TV subsidizes (at least in the early years.)

I was pretty disgusted and horrified when I found just a few days ago I couldn't skip commercials on Comcast's on-demand TV shows. It's not all TV shows yet, just a couple of networks so far. But the writing is on the wall. Now I make damn sure I save TV shows to my DVR when they air instead of expecting to catch up with On-Demand.

This is exactly why i just wait for stuff on disc and then rent it, or buy for cheap...

In fairness, Time Warner does the same thing for their On-Demand shows. The only show I ever really catch On-Demand is Psych, and their commercials are less than a minute. So a 44 minute show takes about 48 minutes to watch.I'm totally ok with that. But part of it is also that it's Psych, so I'm usually half-watching anyway.

But I think I can do 48 minutes for a 44 show. It's the 60 minutes for a 44 show that is painful.

I was pretty disgusted and horrified when I found just a few days ago I couldn't skip commercials on Comcast's on-demand TV shows. It's not all TV shows yet, just a couple of networks so far. But the writing is on the wall. Now I make damn sure I save TV shows to my DVR when they air instead of expecting to catch up with On-Demand.

This is exactly why i just wait for stuff on disc and then rent it, or buy for cheap...

Beamer wrote on May 16, 2012, 10:09:"Fox and NBC: Dish's commercial-skipping DVR 'a strange thing to do' at best, 'an insult' at worst."

In the "be careful what you wish for" department, we're probably less than 3 years away from permanent ad bugs or ad scrolls during shows to compensate for revenues lost via commercial-skipping viewers.

Of course, no one wants to watch crap with that crap, so ad-revenue-driven programming will likely cut back significantly. That's not just networks but basic cable. Which will drop cable subscription rates, meaning HBO will suffer, too.

On the plus side, all of this will force new business models and, probably, new content creativity.On the down side, it will likely lead to a few lame years and some serious viewing habit fragmentation (which we kind of have, anyway.)

I was pretty disgusted and horrified when I found just a few days ago I couldn't skip commercials on Comcast's on-demand TV shows. It's not all TV shows yet, just a couple of networks so far. But the writing is on the wall. Now I make damn sure I save TV shows to my DVR when they air instead of expecting to catch up with On-Demand.

I won't be surprised if they build that into their DVRs sometime soon. Unskippable commercials even for shows you record as they air. Yeah, I'll be quitting Comcast then.

As far as new business models go Beamer, I remember they did some very obvious product placements on both Psych and Eureka a couple of seasons back. Psych had constant references to some deodorant throughout the season. It was obvious they were having a little fun with it. I rolled my eyes but I admit it didn't disgust me. For Eureka it was a car, also over several shows. I imagine that would get very very old if we saw that constantly on all of our shows.

I think the answer is to make clever commercials people will want to watch. Like super bowl halftime ads.

In the "be careful what you wish for" department, we're probably less than 3 years away from permanent ad bugs or ad scrolls during shows to compensate for revenues lost via commercial-skipping viewers.

Of course, no one wants to watch crap with that crap, so ad-revenue-driven programming will likely cut back significantly. That's not just networks but basic cable. Which will drop cable subscription rates, meaning HBO will suffer, too.

On the plus side, all of this will force new business models and, probably, new content creativity.On the down side, it will likely lead to a few lame years and some serious viewing habit fragmentation (which we kind of have, anyway.)